[John Moore II]

I would think that 5% is pretty low when trying to estimate the number of rounds using the matchplay format. Where does this number come from?

Its an estimate, made by me. And in my experience, its higher than what I have directly seen. Lets see, the first club where I played, in the weekend group we played 4 man better ball, something like four-ball, but it was gross strokes as a team. Second club we played 4 man teams with bets running a wheel against the other 4 man team, gross strokes. Next club we had no set game, just made up whatever you wanted, 2 on 2 for $1 a hole (but almost always they were not in your same group), $5 gross score 1 on 1. And my final club as a member, we played 4 man teams, stableford points based on handicap. So, none of those games are contested at match play. None of my games against members when I was a pro were played at match play. Maybe the rest of the world is different, but I have been a member at 5 clubs now and I've worked at 3; only twice have I seen match play, once in 2004 for a club North-South 'Ryder' Cup match and the other, at a different club, was another Ryder Cup style match. Oh, forgot, two high school matches against a team we out matched by a huge margin, we played match play so we could get around the course quicker. So, I'd say I've played over 1,000 rounds of golf in my time, and exactly 3 of them have been played at true match play. That works out to .3% if exactly 1,000 rounds is used.

[john_stiles]

In many courses I visit,  4 ball match play is fairly common.

You and me agin them boys. 

Most member - guests are 4 ball match play as well in my limited experience.

[Sean_A]

The powers that be in the States seem to bellieve it is better to have as many people (which is nowhere near 50% anyway) with an inaccurate handicap as possible on the books than it is to have far fewer with an accurate handicap on the books.  Two basic principles should be followed which have been dumped; attesting scores and counting only competition scores for handicapping purposes.  Both of these criteria greatly increase the odds dramatically that the round in question has been played by the rules and that the score recorded is accurate - its that simple.  I know folks say few golfers play in comps so that reduces the "handicap pool", but then why the need for a handicap if guys aren't playing comps?  If you are only a social golfer a "social" handicap works fine.   

I would also add that trying to boil down a slope rating is SUBJECTIVE because the criteria has been set subjectively.  I don't like slope because it can't take into account all sorts of nuances of design nor can the wind be accounted for.  Its a crude measurement device, but then any numbers device to determine the strength of a course is flawed. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

I have heard many a comment at TOC questioning – shall we call it the accuracy of the handicaps for some of the  overseas visitors.  That is not saying  or referring to cheating in any way, just the way handicaps are awarded.

Of course it could be down to the type of game one plays as well (mainly inland opposed to seaside links). Also if your handicap has been accredited due to club competitions then the records are there for all to see and will certainly survive travel as well as scrutiny.

The point I suppose is that consistency travels well and can be reaffirmed by ones performance (allowing of course for the odd bad day). This is not to say that one’s handicap reflect the golfing qualities of the individual but just allows a brief reflection of his/her current potential.

In truth I suppose for those who seem to judge or rate golfers via handicaps, its important to then that the handicap reflects the golfers current performance. Which in closing seem at times to raise an eyebrow or two

Melvyn 

[Mike_Young]

I agree in theory, however according to the USGA:

Scores in All Forms of Competition

Scores in both match play and stroke play must be posted for handicap purposes. This includes scores made in match play, in multi-ball, or in team competitions in which players have not completed one or more holes or in which players are requested to pick up when out of contention on a hole. (See Decision 5-1c/1 and Section 4.)

Jud,
Well...I apologize....I would have to say that the rule above makes it almost impossible to have an accurate handicap....never had focused on that...

[Steve Lang]

... the only "one thing" I'd vote for (or should it be fore?).. would be "Follow the rules of play"


at my company's annual tourny, records are kept of everyone's scores and full handicaps are only established after 5 tourny rounds in the books, until then you only get an increasing percentage of your record handicap.

[Jud_T]

The best is when some guest comes into a club member/guest tournament, throws a few bucks on his team in the calcutta, claims a 22 course handicap, then proceeds to shoot 3 rounds in the 80s...

[Fred Yanni]

This is an interesting thread - I actually have the opposite problem - I can't get my index up (usu. its 1.5 to 2.0) and I believe it should be a higher based on the fact I have no home club in my area and never get to practice.

2 issues seems to keep it lower than it should be:

1)  Equitable stroke control - being capped at a double bogey is silly - I probably have a blow up hole about every other round and yet I am capped at a double - granted the ten worst scores are dumped but there is no guaranty my blow up holes are always in my worst rounds.   There are plenty of 77s posted that are closer to 80 if I played out my OB tee shot - this would push my index higher.

2)  Many of my rounds are played in corporate outings where the tee setup is much easier than the CR or slope on the card that day to keep play moving.  However,  the club does not provide an adjusted CR or slope for the ease of the setup for these "pitch & putt" corporate days.  Playing 6100 yard corporate outings and using the 6500 yard CR and slope is an issue (of course I could choose not post these scores but I post everything as I believe that is what I should be doing)

I noticed this issue when last summer I did an analysis of 15 of my friends and found that I played to my index the lowest percentage of the time when compared to the sample size - 15% or 3 rounds in 20.  Most of my friends played at or below their index just over 25% of the time.  I started to look for possible causes and figured one was controllable (no practice or home club in the area) but the other 2 were not (equitable stroke control and corporate outing tee set ups that do not reflect the actual difficulty of the course).

Any color or suggestions by the experts would be appreciated.     I also recognize maybe the USGA wants me to play to my index less than 25% of the time but I am not sure what the intentions are.  Thanks for the color.

[Jud_T]

Fred,

I don't think you should be posting scores when you are not playing from the rated sets of tees....This seems to be the most glaring problem and it's understandable why you feel you should be a stroke or 2 higher...

[Carl Johnson]

Putt out + Play by the rules + Post your scores = Money in the bank

I play a fair amount of golf with a wide variety of people and I don't see many with real handicaps because they are posting scores without really finishing a golf hole. When someone tells me "that's good" I generally say thank you, but then putt out  for handicap purposes.

I have 2 kids in college, so I love playing people with Hollywood handicaps.

It's not all the system.

BINGO....PUTT IT OUT....side breaking short putts of three feet or less will do more to solve the handicap problem than any distance issues...AGREE  100%...

I have no doubt about it.  Playing with the same guys at home all the time, the "gimmie takies" make little if any difference.  Playing serious matches, e.g., inter-clubs, away or home, the vanity, ego or Hollywood handicap becomes a real problem.

[John Moore II]

Fred Yanni-You make a good point about ESC. It is good in principle but in a lot of cases, it keeps people from having an accurate handicap. Sometimes it is obvious that a guy is trying to make a 10 or something to pad up his handicap, but a lot of times a guy just makes a bad score. And after all, they don't let you stop at your ESC score in a tournament. I mean, lets say I play a tournament, playing well, then yank one OB, pump one over the green and so forth, make a 10 on a par 3 (I've personally made double digits on a par 3, its not that far fetched). Then all flusterd up, I make 8 on the next par 4. End up shooting, lets say, 80. So, I have to post 73 as a tournament round according to ESC, because you still have to adjust tournament rounds, according to the rules. (or so I think, I've read about 75% of the handicap manual in the last 30 minutes) Thats bogus.

Good example, when I tried to qualify for the SC Open a few years ago, I made a 7 on the 6th hole (par 4) and then a 8 on the 7th hole (another par 4). Shot 81, missed the playoff by 3. But oh wait, if I post that one, I post 78. NO, DAMN IT I DIDN'T SHOOT 78, I SHOT 81, 78 WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ME INTO THE PLAYOFF for the final 3 shots, 5 for 3 spots. So why should I have to post 78?

[Ken Moum]

2)  Many of my rounds are played in corporate outings where the tee setup is much easier than the CR or slope on the card that day to keep play moving.  However,  the club does not provide an adjusted CR or slope for the ease of the setup for these "pitch & putt" corporate days.  Playing 6100 yard corporate outings and using the 6500 yard CR and slope is an issue (of course I could choose not post these scores but I post everything as I believe that is what I should be doing)

The USGA does have a system for posting scores from unrated tees. i have been doing that at my home course because one set of tees is virtually NEVER where they were rated from.

Section g under this part of the manual http://www.usga.org/bookrule.aspx?id=14379#5-2 offers a chart for doing so.

[Fred Yanni]

Gentlemen,

Thank You for the information - great stuff.  I will make the adjustments in the future.

[Jud_T]

John,

I understand your frustration, but the system is meant to make it so players of varying abilities can play a relatively even match.  Furthermore it's an estimate of your potential.  So if you are in fact capable of shooting 73 or 74 on a good day then biasing you're average good scores up by posting a triple may not make sense.  Furthermore, if you're in a match and are capable of reeling off 17 straight pars followed by a quad, should you really be getting a stroke on 4 holes?  In addition, my understanding is that the system has a small mathematical bias in favor of the lower handicaps so as to foster a desire for improvement.

[Ken Moum]

John,

I understand your frustration, but the system is meant to make it so players of varying abilities can play a relatively even match.  Furthermore it's an estimate of your potential.  So if you are in fact capable of shooting 73 or 74 on a good day then biasing you're average good scores up by posting a triple may not make sense.  Furthermore, if you're in a match and are capable of reeling off 17 straight pars followed by a quad, should you really be getting a stroke on 4 holes?  In addition, my understanding is that the system has a small mathematical bias in favor of the lower handicaps so as to foster a desire for improvement.

I still would contend that in its attempt to allow players of varying skill to compete, the GHIN system makes it's biggest error by ignoring golf's primary skill--the ability to play well under pressure. 

By giving casual rounds the same weight as competition, it guarantees that a small group of players will have a huge advantage over their supposed peers.  At least 90 percent of golfers get worse when the try hard, while a few play as well as normal and an even smaller group actually get better.

At my club we have a couple of guys who I don't believe cheat on the handicaps, but who simply love the pressure of competitive golf, and they are almost unbeatable. If tournament organizer diligently posted competition rounds as T scores, the problem migh be solved, but that never happens here.  Hell, the KGA expects players to post their own tournament rounds.

K

K

[John Moore II]

John,

I understand your frustration, but the system is meant to make it so players of varying abilities can play a relatively even match.  Furthermore it's an estimate of your potential.  So if you are in fact capable of shooting 73 or 74 on a good day then biasing you're average good scores up by posting a triple may not make sense.  Furthermore, if you're in a match and are capable of reeling off 17 straight pars followed by a quad, should you really be getting a stroke on 4 holes?  In addition, my understanding is that the system has a small mathematical bias in favor of the lower handicaps so as to foster a desire for improvement.

For every one player that might have a situation like that, I'd bet there are 3 who pad up a handicap and cheat you out of your money or your match. I've played with guys that supposed have an 8 index, getting 10 strokes on a given course, and they go out and shoot 71. 8 handicap my A$$.

[JohnV]

I still would contend that in its attempt to allow players of varying skill to compete, the GHIN system makes it's biggest error by ignoring golf's primary skill--the ability to play well under pressure. 

By giving casual rounds the same weight as competition, it guarantees that a small group of players will have a huge advantage over their supposed peers.  At least 90 percent of golfers get worse when the try hard, while a few play as well as normal and an even smaller group actually get better.

At my club we have a couple of guys who I don't believe cheat on the handicaps, but who simply love the pressure of competitive golf, and they are almost unbeatable. If tournament organizer diligently posted competition rounds as T scores, the problem migh be solved, but that never happens here.  Hell, the KGA expects players to post their own tournament rounds.

The key is that your handicap committee is not doing their job.  Important tournaments should be posted as T scores.  That would take care of a lot of that problem.

Here at the NCGA we have gone a step further and have a "net score database" that we maintain for all our own net tournaments.  Each year, the past three years worth of data for every player who plays in our net events is analyzed and we lower the handicaps of anyone who consistently shoots too low a score.  This only applies to our tournaments, but some clubs have chosen to make the same adjustment to their members who get caught up in our net. (Pun intended).

The players can appeal.  Our Handicap Director looks at each appeal.  We have  one guy who has appealed every year.  The last I heard, this guy had beaten his handicap in all but 2 of 25 tournament rounds, but never beaten in over 100 non-tournament rounds.  Yet he keeps telling us his handicap is too low.

[Dan Herrmann]

John K Moore,
How about a club I was a member of years ago....  Played with a "15"  - shoots 38 on the front.  Doing very well on the back too till he gets to 13.  He then proceeds to keep putting till he hits his ESC score.  Outright cheating.

[Jud_T]

JVB,

IMHO Guys like that should get a warning, then get their membership revoked...

[Steve Kline]

 In addition, my understanding is that the system has a small mathematical bias in favor of the lower handicaps so as to foster a desire for improvement.

I find it impossible to believe that the system has a bias in favor of lower handicaps. As a lower handicap it is virtually impossible for me to beat anyone above a 5 handicap in a match. Just as an example I played a 13 handicap in a match at my club this year. So, I was giving 13 shots (thankfully I'm not playing him now as it would be 16). I was 5 under through 13 holes and was 1 up (I birdied 11, 12, and 13). I was 6 under through 16 and still only 1 up. Even with the benefit of playing a set of tees up from what I normally play it's not often I'm 6 under through 16 holes at my home course. I've only shot better than 4 under there 2 or 3 times in five years. So basically, I'm playing one of my best rounds in 5 years and I lose the match. That's not the only time that has happened to me. Some bias for low handicappers. Why is it that higher handicappers (10-20) always win handicapped events? Are they just the best cheaters?

[Jud_T]

yes, they may be sandbagging.  the adjustment to differential of .987 (?) is the factor which I believe favors the lower hdcp.  Not to mention if the wind is up etc. which effectively increases the rating/slope...of course any 18 hdcp. can pull a 9-hole 39 out of his shorts if he's holing everything, but if this happens consistently, the jig is up.  I know that I rarely win money against low handicap gamers who can grind out a 73 on their home course in their sleep....

[John Moore II]

JVB,

IMHO Guys like that should get a warning, then get their membership revoked...

I say anyone who shoots more than 5 shots below their handicap should be disqualified on the spot.

Jud-I have been that 18 who shot 39 on the front 9. Of course, I made eagle on the first hole, par on 2 and birdie on 3. Then made bogey on the next 15 holes. A situation like that is different, an obvious 'fluke.' But a true 8 handicap doesn't shoot 71 on a difficult course in semi-tournament conditions.

Steve-You got the hose big time. I've been in that situation before myself, though I wasn't so far under par. Played a match play event, real, true match play event at the club. I turned in 2 under and I was 1 down. I was +2 on the back when he closed me out 3&2. Yeah, I was pretty steamed.

[Carl Johnson]

A lot of animosity here about the handicap system.  You've got an option, of course.  Don't play handicapped events.  Next best option, don't play in handicapped events where you're not comfortable that everyone will be playing with an honest handicap as you define it.  A lot of personal stories, ancecotes, here, too.  I've got a friend who's not a golfer, but a competitive athlete, and cannot understand why anyone would play in handicapped events.  I played a scratch event with another friend, who I play with a lot, who carries a 7, which I think is low for his ability, and he won it with a 71, one under par (on a course of only moderate difficulty).  I lost a match in senior league competition to a guy a couple of years ago who was carrying a 27 and shot a true medal 86 (net 59) and never posted the score.  Talk about variance, eight under handicap, and so on.  Right now my index is 19.2 (I think), and my medal scores this year have ranged from 83 to 115 (the latter with three ESC caps).  I know that at least one golfer at our club thinks my handicap is too high, and for that reason is reluctant to play with me, even in $2 Nassaus.  On the other hand, my inter-club match play record this year is 1-6.  Think my handicap is too high?  My personal take is that the handicap system is not perfect, and no one claims that it is.  Not everyone is "honest."  Not in golf, and not in a lot of other things.  Everyone gets scr--e- now and then.  The math of the system is not going to change that.  Well, but the committees could.  But not all of them will.  So, back to the beginning.  Most golfers are honest, and to be frank, I think that the number of vanity handicappers far exeeds the number of sandbaggers.

[Doug Siebert]

I find it impossible to believe that the system has a bias in favor of lower handicaps. As a lower handicap it is virtually impossible for me to beat anyone above a 5 handicap in a match. Just as an example I played a 13 handicap in a match at my club this year. So, I was giving 13 shots (thankfully I'm not playing him now as it would be 16). I was 5 under through 13 holes and was 1 up (I birdied 11, 12, and 13). I was 6 under through 16 and still only 1 up. Even with the benefit of playing a set of tees up from what I normally play it's not often I'm 6 under through 16 holes at my home course. I've only shot better than 4 under there 2 or 3 times in five years. So basically, I'm playing one of my best rounds in 5 years and I lose the match. That's not the only time that has happened to me. Some bias for low handicappers. Why is it that higher handicappers (10-20) always win handicapped events? Are they just the best cheaters?

Steve,

In a heads up match (assuming the high handicapper has an honest handicap) the bonus for excellence should see you winning more than 50% of the matches.

But you're right that you're screwed when you're in a tournament setting playing against dozens of them.  Its simple math.  As higher handicappers they've got a higher variation in their scores.  Odds are well against any one of them beating his handicap by a half dozen strokes, but when you are playing against 50 of them, odds are in favor of one guy doing that.  So you probably have to have a 1 in 500 round to win.  The handicap system was designed to equalize matches, it was never designed to equalize a scratch playing against a hundred bogey golfers.

Though it sounds like in your example the guy you were playing against was probably not an honest 13...

[Wayne_Kozun]

Doug makes an excellent point and highlights one of the major problems with handicaps - they don't account for the variance of a player's scores, just the mean of the best 50% of rounds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()